Happy Here and Now (2002)

When an unhappy young woman disappears, her worried sister desperately searches the internet for a clue to her missing sibling's whereabouts.

Director:

Michael Almereyda

Writer:

Michael Almereyda

Stars:

Karl Geary, Shalom Harlow, Clarence Williams III

1 nomination.

Cast

Credited cast:
Karl Geary	...	Eddie Mars / Tom
Shalom Harlow	...	Muriel
Clarence Williams III	...	Bill
Ally Sheedy	...	Lois
Josephine Martin	...	Josephine
Gloria Reuben	...	Hannah
Liane Balaban	...	Amelia
David Arquette	...	Eddie
Isabel Gillies	...	Isabel
Quintron	...	Quintron
Nic Ratner	...	Peter
John Sinclair	...	Himself
Ernie K-Doe	...	Himself
Antoinette K-Doe	...	Herself
Rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Larry Fessenden	...	Clifton

Storyline

In New Orleans, a young woman named Muriel goes missing. Her sister, Amelia, arrives to look for her. Aided by her aunt's lover, an ex-CIA agent named Bill, Amelia finds evidence on Muriel's computer of conversations with a mysterious and philosophical man. Bill and Amelia's search for him is fitful, but we learn that he's Eddie, a local exterminator who wants to produce and direct a movie about Nicholas Tesla. We follow Eddie, full of schemes, and we meet his brother, Tom, a firefighter who may know something about the death of a man whose widow, Hannah, seeks him out. What has happened to Muriel? Is this a world where anything can be known?

---

Plot Keywords:

tesla | widow | ex cia agent | exterminator | computer | 

---

Genres:

Drama

---

Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)

Rated R for some language

Details

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Release Date:

8 June 2002 (USA)

Also Known As:

Segunda Vida

Box Office

Opening Weekend:

$1,867 (USA) (16 December 2005)

Gross:

$2,443 (USA) (16 December 2005)

Company Credits

Production Co:

IFC Productions, Keep Your Head Productions, Keep Your Head

Technical Specs

Runtime:

89 min

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Color:

Color

User Reviews

ideas? direction? purpose? not here...

Now let me clarify that I love art films. I love abstract ideas. I love seeing and hearing things on screen that make me go,"Wha????, and then go "oohhhh...i get it." But this is no Godard. This film, well, I just don't know. Is it in art film? Is it an excuse to display the gritty, third-world beauty of New Orleans, and the array of characters that lie within? Or is it a low-budget independent film that juggles from one concept to the other, never bothering to connect the dots because, well hell, there wasn't really a solid script in the first place, and never a real purpose to the story(how's that for a run-on sentence)? i guess my problem with this film is that, though it may have been low-budget, they still spent a a good deal on its production and actors, but didn't bother making an actual story with what they had. I was intrigued by the film and the ideas it was portraying. And if the whole film would have been as beautifully-abstract as the final dream sequence, or even the beginning (the music score, by David Julyan is great!), I would have wept--in a good way--like a child. I saw this at the New Orleans film fest in a packed house of audience members happy enough to see people and places they recognized: Ernie K. Doe, Bud's Broiler, etc. But perhaps they loved it...who knows?

The ideas, talent, and potential are there for a good film. But as a whole, the film makes you go, "hmmmmm....interesting....NEXT PLEASE!"